Delhi High Court
Sewa Hotel And Resorts And Ishu Finance ... vs Dda on 5 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: AIR2006DELHI32, 124(2005)DLT421, AIR 2006 DELHI 32, (2005) 83 DRJ 292, (2005) 2 ARBILR 447, (2005) 4 RECCIVR 440, (2005) 124 DLT 421
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog
JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. The two petitions reflect a very shabby and shoddy working of the Delhi Development Authority.
2. M/s. Sewa Hotel and Resorts, a registered partnership firm responded to the advertisement issued by DDA to auction plot No. 10, Pitampura Community Centre, notified as a three star hotel site. At the auction held on 3.6.1997, its bid in sum of Rs. 6.84 Crores was the highest. Rs. 1.71 Crores were deposited on 3.6.1997 itself at the fall of the hammer. Balance amount was paid in the first week of September, 1997. On 10.9.1997 possession was handed over. On 1.6.1998 the perpetual lease was executed.
3. Petitioner, M/s Ishu Finance and Investments Pvt. Ltd. likewise responded to an advertisement issued by DDA for auctioning plot No. 7, Pitampura Community Centre, notified user whereof was a restaurant-cum-commercial complex. At the auction held on 29.2.2000 its bid in sum of Rs. 1,31,05,000/- was the highest. It deposited Rs. 40 lakhs on date of bid. Balance amount of Rs. 91,05,050/- was deposited within 90 days. However, possession of the plot could not be handed over as the site was found to be heaviy encroached upon by Jhuggi dwellers who had erected jhuggies on the auctioned plot.
4. Qua the site of Sewa Hotels and Resorts, adjoining land belonging to DDA was found to be under heavy encroachment with jhuggies erected thereon.
5. Petitioners state that they were assured by officers of DDA that the jhuggies would be removed. Problem qua M/s. Ishu Finance and Investments Pvt.Ltd. was that since the very site was under encroachment, possession could not be handed over. Problem quaSewa Hotels was that though the auctioned site was free from encroachment but was surrounded on all 4 sides with jhuggies. Even access to the plot was encroached upon. Howe could a 3 star hotel came up in filth and squalor.
6. On 10.8.1998 M/s. Sewa Hotel and Resorts was intimated by DDA that it was taking steps to remove the jhuggies.
7. No action being taken by DDA and in the meanwhile M/s. Sewa Hotel and Resorts facing another problem, that of not completing construction of the hotel building within the time stipulated in the perpetual lease deed and facing threat of determination of its lease, it filed a writ petition in this court praying for various reliefs, inter alia, seeking a direction that the jhuggies be removed and that DDA be restrained from recovering ground rent till the encroachments were removed as also to extend the timunder the lease for construction of the building. On 2.8.2002 an order was passed in the writ petition filed by M/s Sewa Hotels and Resort being WP(C) No. 5005/2001. The order reads as under:-
"An effort was made to amicably settle the disputes in question and in terms whereof a proposal for settlement has been mooted. In terms of this settlement, respondent DDA will clear the jhuggi cluster within a period of one and a half years. The pettioner will be granted an extension of period for construction of five years from the date when the same expired in 2000. The petitioner will also be granted same terms for the ground rent for an additional period of two years at the rate of Rs. 1/- from the date when such period would expire. Mr.Surajit Roy, Director (Commercial Land) who is present today seeks sometime to obtain instructions. List on 1st October, 2002."
8. Writ petition was disposed of on 11.11.2002 with the following order:
"Learned counsel for respondent DDA states that the proposal mooted in the Court on 20th August, 2002 has been accepted by the DDA in terms whereof respondent DDA will clear the jhuggi cluster within a period of one and a half years and the petitioner ill be granted an extension of period for construction of five years from the date when the same expired in 2000 and shall also be granted same terms for the ground rent for an additional period of two years at the rate of Rs. 1/- from the date when sucheriod would expire. The plans of the petitioner will be re-validated for the aforesaid period within a period of two weeks from the petitioner submitting the same with the respondent. Writ petition stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms."
9. Let alone the period of one year and six months reckoned from 29.8.2002, till date the jhuggies continue to exist at site.
10. In the reply filed by DDA it is stated that relocation of the jhuggi dwellers has to be done by the Slum and JJ Department of the MCD. It is stated that after survey was carried out in Pitampura area, a total number of 1562 jhuggies were found. Amount involved for relocation was Rs. 3,11,75,000/-. This amount was transmitted to the Slum and JJ Wing of MCD on 10.8.2004 Slum and JJ Department of MCD expressed its inability to relocate the slum cluster due to non-availability of the developed plots and accordingly returned the cheque to DDA.
11. Bringing aforesaid position to the notice of this court, DDA prays that the writ petition should be dismissed with punitive costs in its favor.
12. No counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petition filed by M/s. Ishu Finance and Investments Pvt. Ltd., however, counsel for the DDA relied upon counter affidavit filed in the connected writ petition.
13. Position brought out in the two petitions shows the dismal state of municipal governance in Delhi. The political executive in Delhi is encouraging land grabbing by preventing the legal executive from acting in accordance with law. Planned development of Delhi appears to be for the law abiding citizens and not for the land mafia. Problem of the law abiding citizen is compounded due to bureaucratic nepotism, corruption and lethargy. This court is privy to a large number of litigation where DDA and CD would not respond to the legitimate demands of the citizens. Those who require plans to be sanctioned are made to run from pillar to post. Those who require re-validation of sanctions are burdened with heavy costs. Punitive and exorbitant interests levied upon them. Double and even triple allotments of flats and plots is being effected. 9 out of 10 writ petitions in this court pertaining to DDA and MCD are raising issues which can easily be solved at the administrative level, but who takes the decision?
14. DDA is obliged to ensure that development in Delhi is in accordance with the notified Master Plan. DDA has complete monopoly over land in Delhi. The monopoly status of DDA requires a greater obligation to be put on the shoulders of DDA when it comes to matters relating to land. In the facts of the two instant cases, DDA cannot wish away its liability not to clear the encroachments on public lands acquired for the purposes of planned development of Delhi and placed at the disposal of DDA. Lands are acquired out of public funds. Public authorities are answerable to the citizens who are the ultimate beneficiaries as also the owners of the public funds as these are created from the contributions of the citizens, be it by way of taxation or levy of fe. Public authorities are the trustees of these funds.
15. DDA has to be called to order.
16. That there is an internal mechanism under which relocation has to be done by the Slum and JJ Department is not the concern of the petitioners. DDA has chosen to auction land to them. The petitioners have purchased the lands based on the Zonal Development Plan of the area and the approved layout plan. Neither plan shows that jhuggies can exist on the lands in Pitampura. DDA would be obliged to ensure that all lands in Pitam Pura are put to the notified land use as per Master Plan, Zonal Development an and layout plan.
17. The two writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) Within 3 months from today, DDA would remove all the jhuggies in Pitampura. It would be no justification for DDA that Slum and JJ Wing under the administrative control of MCD is not doing the needful.
(ii) No ground rent would be charged from by the petitioners till the jhuggies are removed from Pitampura.
(iii) After the jhuggies are removed, for a period of 2 years thereafter, ground rent would be paid by the petitioner in W.P.(C) 2248/05 at the rate of Re.1 per year and for a period of 5 years at the same rate by Sewa Hotels and Resorts.
(iv) Petitioners would be granted 2 years time without levy of any compensation fee for construction of the buildings on their respective plots. Two years time to be reckoned from the date when jhuggies are removed.
(v) If jhuggies are not removed within the period of 3 months, petitioners would be recompensed with interest by DDA by paying to the petitioners, every quarter, interest on the sale consideration paid by the petitioners, interest being @ 9% per annum.
18. No costs.